> Fixing the packages, is probably the way to go. > You could also create pseudo package "D" which is available in several > versions. > > Package D-1.0c: Package D is depending on nothing > Package D-1.0bc: Package D is depending on B > > Package C is always dependent on Package D and A. > Package B is always dependent on Package A > > If you set PREFERRED_VERSION_D = "1.0c" > C is depending on D, which is depending on nothing, and C is depending on A. > No problem, A and C is built. > > If you set PREFERRED_VERSION_D = "1.0c" > C is depending on D, which is depending on B. B and C is depending on A. > A is built, then B is built, and then D finalizing with C. > > If you only want B, don't include C in the image. > > Not tested, but it looks like it would work.
Thank you for very inspirational suggestion. This may actually work. I was already considering using distro features for defining which recipes should be included and than making chain of dependency based on them. Also as Ciprian suggested putting everything into one recipe and building multiple packages may be the way to go. Thank you both for good suggestions! Radek _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
